Military Vehicles in combat areas might be exposed, inter alia, unto a variety of threats executed by activating explosive charges in the vicinity of the lower (bottom) section of the vehicle.
An outstanding example of threats in this category is presented by any of the large variety of different mines. Activating a mine under a vehicle beneath the under belly (for example, by deploying a sensor that detects when a vehicle passes over or near it, or alternatively, by employing a pressure sensitive mine that senses when a vehicle is driven (passes) over it might expose the bottom belly of the vehicle to destructive effects, e. g., due to a pressure wave, heat, acceleration or shards generated by the explosion.
Any professional would understand that using the expression “mine” in this patent application, is done solely for the sake of convenience and clarity, and it is meant to cover other and additional types of anti vehicle threats that are also based, as said, on the activation of an explosives charge in the vicinity of the lower part of a vehicle, for example—an improvised explosive device (known as IED), road-side charges, standard pressure activated mines and airborne launched explosive charges—such as RPG's (namely—Rocket Propelled Grenades) and the like.
In the recent years, many combat arenas include urban and rural built up areas, that mandates the units operating in them to utilize relatively light wheeled vehicles (in contra distinction to the tracked vehicles that provide a certain level of protection), as they provide mobility and maneuverability while simultaneously causing less hardship and harm to the civilian infrastructure (for example—roads, bridges, electricity power networks, water and sewerage facilities).
The challenge that the mines threats sets before the wheeled vehicles is very severe, due to the constraints affecting the wheeled vehicles, namely its inability to “carry” on it appropriate protecting means, that is relatively rather heavy for such vehicles (as opposed to the carrying capabilities of the more robust tracked vehicles, where it is less obstructive). This challenge becomes more stringent at times when the wheeled vehicles are also threatened and challenged, additionally, by threats aimed at the upper parts of the vehicle (for example—shooting by light arms and missiles). The weight carrying limits applying to wheeled vehicles mandates, hence, that the designer shall compromise and use a lower protection level, or alternatively, select more expensive materials for the armoring solutions—which, unluckily, are characterized by relatively short life times (for example, composite materials, ceramics or similar items).
Over the course of recent years, several solutions were proposed to cope with this challenge. For example—
Patent application publication US 2008/0066613 of—Mills et al, described a perforated hull for vehicle blast shield, which is based on a combination of a V-hull shape and an energy observing structure.
Subsequently, in patent application publication US 2008/0173167, Mills et al provide a description of a vehicular based mine blast energy mitigation structure that, as said there, might have a V-shaped hull and an energy absorbing structure incorporated into the chassis of a wheeled vehicle, wherein the energy absorbing structure comprises a truss-like structure including I-beams.
The solutions that were offered by Mills are verily complicated and relatively heavy, because they are based on adding material at the lower section of the vehicle—namely adding a specific (dedicated) structure to provide the protection while the vehicle referred to is of the “Body-on-Frame” type.
Patent application publication US 2008/0111396 of Barbe et al describes a protection device for a vehicle floor pan that incorporates at least one layer of deformable reinforcements, positioned between a plane front plate and a plane rear plate, the surface density of the front plate being greater than that of the reinforcement.
Note that this means that the solution suggested by Barbe (et al) relies on assigning a dedicated volume for the sake of including a dedicated protection within the dedicated volume.
Williams' U.S. Pat. No. 5,533,781 describes an armoring assembly for protecting the under belly of a wheeled vehicle by using a structure that comprises a fibrous material that is secured to the upper surface of the vehicle floor, and a ballistic panel/blast shield disposed below the lower surface of the floor and spaced there from so as to form an air gap there—namely between them.
We stress that the solution suggested by Williams requires—as the former one, assigning a dedicated volume for inserting the dedicated protection into it.
U.S. Pat. No. 7,228,927 patent of Hass et al, describes a vehicle protection means against the effect of a land mine wherein a wheeled vehicle is provided with wheel axels and drives built into the front and/or the rear building blocks. A residual mobility of a remaining portion of the vehicle is preserved, even though one of the front or rear building block is separated from the main building block due to the explosive shock wave generated by driving over and detonating a land mine, because each of the building blocks has a separate drive for rotating the wheel axel connected to the block.
This solution is relatively expensive, and inter alia it requires two separate and independent propulsion means. The enhanced survivability that this solution provides, as an outcome of the vehicle's ability to continue moving after the explosion (although in a limited manner) depends on the type and on the location in which the threat did act, for example, if it was a pressure mine activated by the wheel of a vehicle that over-ran the mine top. The enhanced survivability that this solution provides is valid only in case that the mine was detonated against the specific block on which the wheel is mounted, while leaving behind—unharmed, an additional block of the vehicle that is capable of the non harmed propulsion capability that survived.
U.S. Pat. No. 7,357,062 of Joint, describes a mine resistant armored vehicle that comprises a front wheel drive assembly and a rear wheel drive assembly. The vehicle may include a monocoque body—namely, in automotive terms—a vehicle construction in which the body is united with the frame and machinery or type of construction in which the outer layer absorbs all or most of the stress. The monocoque body comprised of a sheet metal. The engine and the drive train are operatively and detachably affixed to the body. The bottom of the body is generally V-shaped. The bottom portion further includes a metal energy-absorbing member extending longitudinally along—, and affixed to—, the interior of the apex of the V.
The solution suggested by Joint focuses solely on the design of the bottom of the monocoque body in the V configuration and is teaching the locating of an additional and dedicated means along the length of the a monocoque body.
Thus, in consequence of the existing drawbacks detailed above when referring to the prior art, in the period preceding the presentation of the present invention, a need exists for devising a solution enabling to protect the lower (bottom) parts of wheeled vehicles against mines, that—                a. Would be low priced and relatively amenable to simple production and installation.        b. Its implementation would not be subject to assigning a dedicated relatively large free volume solely for enabling to position the protection means in there (while this would consequently reduce the inner volume assigned to the combatants and equipment or entailing deviation from the boundaries of the vehicle, thus reducing the traversablity of the vehicle and increasing its silhouette “foot print”.        c. Would lead towards a reduction in the number of the additional dedicated protection means—that their sole task is expressed in providing additional armoring (and naturally, add “dead weight” on the vehicle).        d. Would enable convenient and simple interfacing with and on existing or planned (future) all wheeled automotive platforms.        e. Would be effective and efficient from the protective aspect but simultaneously would be of a relative light weight.        